Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.

When Davis having children out of wedlock or multiple marriages leads to demands that religious institutions change their tenets to applaud rather than repent those behavior choices or to someone losing a job, CEO-chairman-ship, or closing small businesses (florists, photography studios, event location rentals, bakeries) or someone going to jail, there can then be a valid comparison.

She believes that the Constitution is on her side. Freedom of Religion. I know it doesn't say that exactly but it also doesn't say Penumbra at all (See Roe. And I am pro-choice. Imagine that!!).

When Davis having children out of wedlock or multiple marriages leads to demands that religious institutions change their tenets to applaud rather than repent those behavior choices or to someone losing a job, CEO-chairman-ship, or closing small businesses (florists, photography studios, event location rentals, bakeries) or someone going to jail, there can then be a valid comparison.

Bill's BJ nearly led to impeachment, so it must be a valid comparison by your definition.

She believes that the Constitution is on her side.

It's not even shaky ground she stands on here...SCOTUS has already ruled on marriage equality.

I respectfully disagree that the fact she is an adulterer is irrelevant. She claims God gives her higher authority to deny licenses to gays. She cites Him. The fact she only applies His scripture toward gays, and not to herself, is hypocritical. She should have been denied license to ever marry again when she got pregnant during an adulterous relationship. She has no ground to stand on when she refuses to respect the Bible as it pertains to adultery. If God decides who is to be married, He definitely would not allow an adulterer to be remarried to the sinner who also committed adultery.

The reason why you are incorrect is because her claims that it is her religion which causes her not to do her sworn task isn't pertinent either. If she were a perfect example of the kind of religious adherent she claims to be. It would be equally meaningless. If she refused to do her job because she wanted her office to be repainted first, she would still belong in jail for refusing to do her job after being court ordered to do it. If she were a Catholic, and had a signed letter from the Pope, telling her not to do her job, it still wouldn't be relevant to the legal situation, or to the thread.

And I think that it's very important to U.S. law that it DOESN'T matter what her beliefs or personal failings in other areas of her life are.

It sounds like it would be similar to someone signing up to serve in the armed forces, and then being sent to fight in a war, but refusing to shoot the enemy because their religion says murder is wrong. They would have to pay the consequences for their actions (non-actions).

...that this person did what she did, for the reason that she did it, is an example of how religion and religious people are always liable to screw things up. And it demonstrates the need for secularism and the separation between church and state.

Many of us will preach about refusing to follow unjust laws, and can't always be criticized negatively for it. But this person used her shallow religious views as an excuse to impose her "beliefs" upon other people and their lifestyles which wouldn't be bringing any harm to anyone, committing a serious injustice to others...it's not like she was refusing to put people out into the street in winter or kill people in an ambiguous war.

Whenever you refuse to follow what you think is an unjust law, your judgement and action should be based on objectivity and rationality, or empathy, etc. But in this case it was only because of some g-d d-amned disgusting mother f-cking idiot's religious beliefs that should be about how she lives, not how others live...and concerning something which is outrageously harmless as a marriage license for a same-sex couple. For no good reason except dogmatic (blind and unquestioned) religious bigotry.

Whenever you can't separate your religious views from your civic or governmental job, there is a serious problem with your understanding of your responsibility in such a position, which of course...yea you guessed it...stems from religion.

She's just using religion as a cover for her hate. Just because a lot of other people are doing the same thing doesn't mean that religion is the problem. If she were truly a Christian she'd be using her time to fight for the things Jesus said needed to be fought for. You know, helping prisoners, the poor.... like that there.

I really don't see any room for debate on the subject. She is entitled to her beliefs. She is not entitled to use those beliefs to infringe on other people's rights as established by the courts.

This sums it up nicely.

I don't think she should resign. I think she should be sacked. Anyone else not doing the tasks they were employed to do, would lose their job. Just because she's a government employee, this shouldn't change the facts. Do your job, all of it, and get paid. Don't do your job, or think you can pick and choose the parts you want to do, and lose it to someone else. Simple.

What stopped the judge from just ordering the others to issue the licenses in the first place?-----------She is deliberately refusing to do her job and violating a court order to do it. Contempt of court is a common sanction for refusal to follow a court order. Just ask some journalists. Since she is an elected official she cannot be fired. Removing her from office requires that she be impeached.-----------People were a bit surprised given that the judge's father is/was some big republican conservative.----------Why? The judge issued a court order and she refused to comply. That's what judges do when people violate court orders, republican or democrat.

----------Is this another power grab of the federal government over state concerns? Domestic Relations, Elections, ----------The supremacy clause in the constitution makes the federal government supreme when there is a conflict. If that weren't the case, a state could reinstitute slavery with the federal government having no means to prevent it from doing so.

----------What would you have done?----------Put her ass in jail. She is a public official and just like anyone else, if she doesn't like doing her job, she can find another one, more to her liking.

-------------Will the state legislature amend the law to accommodate people like Davis or force them not to run for such offices?------------Exactly how would the legislature amend a law to allow an elected official to disregard the law and the legal system? Don't you think that already happens enough by people in elected office without trying to give them incentive to do it?

There is nothing controversial about this except for the clerk's attempts to make it controversial.

she is exactly where she wants to be. In jail. Making it on the news every day. getting people on her side.

she did violate a court order. but did the judge have to issue THAT order? Was there authority for the court to issue that order?

"""""Religious Discrimination & Reasonable AccommodationThe law requires an employer or other covered entity to reasonably accommodate an employee's religious beliefs or practices, unless doing so would cause more than a minimal burden on the operations of the employer's business. This means an employer may be required to make reasonable adjustments to the work environment that will allow an employee to practice his or her religion.

Examples of some common religious accommodations include flexible scheduling, voluntary shift substitutions or swaps, job reassignments, and modifications to workplace policies or practices."""""" EEOC

the court decision will be interesting because it will address a PUBLIC OFFICIAL. does a federal court have the authority to force a state elected official to perform a duty? a pharmacist does not have to give out morning after pill if it is against his conscious/religion. a state elected official raises all sorts of jurisdictional, immunity and authority questions.

the court decision will be interesting because it will address a PUBLIC OFFICIAL. does a federal court have the authority to force a state elected official to perform a duty? a pharmacist does not have to give out morning after pill if it is against his conscious/religion. a state elected official raises all sorts of jurisdictional, immunity and authority questions.

No. No it doesn't.

Even elected officials have to obey the law. And they can be held in contempt if they refuse to obey a court order.

Religious Discrimination & Reasonable AccommodationThe law requires an employer or other covered entity to reasonably accommodate an employee's religious beliefs or practices, unless doing so would cause more than a minimal burden on the operations of the employer's business. This means an employer may be required to make reasonable adjustments to the work environment that will allow an employee to practice his or her religion.

Examples of some common religious accommodations include flexible scheduling, voluntary shift substitutions or swaps, job reassignments, and modifications to workplace policies or practices

Allowing an employee to practice his or her religion should not include imposing your ideas upon someone else by way of abusing your position of public official. Practicing your religion would be you not marrying someone of the same sex if you so believe...it is not trying to force someone else to do the same if they don't share your religious practices.

a pharmacist does not have to give out morning after pill if it is against his conscious/religion.

There is now the muslim flight attendant who refuses to serve alcohol.

my, what can of worms did the court open. . . . .

i would buy the force argument if she hadn't proposed having the licenses valid without her signature or she ran the only office available. she did not act. She was not compelling them to marry someone of the opposite sex or not at all. So force does not appear to be the correct word.

please don't resort to jerome's law.

"A federal judge ruled in February of 2012 that Washington state couldn’t force pharmacies to sell Plan B. Then in September of the same year, an Illinois appellate court affirmed a lower court’s ruling that pharmacists could not be forced by the state to sell Plan B if they had religious objections."

That County Clerk stated that she would issue marriage licences if her name was removed from them. I'm not sure if that was her beef from the beginning though, however apparently the Governor can issue an executive order to do just that.

Now if that is a workable solution then why doesn't the Governor do just that?

There is now the muslim flight attendant who refuses to serve alcohol.

Which is WORLDS apart from performing the legal duties of an elected official... There is no law... or Constitution... which requires the serving of alcohol on planes... but there is for elected public duties...

Didn't they teach you that in civics...?

my, what can of worms did the court open. . . . .

None at all...

"A federal judge ruled in February of 2012 that Washington state couldn’t force pharmacies to sell Plan B. Then in September of the same year, an Illinois appellate court affirmed a lower court’s ruling that pharmacists could not be forced by the state to sell Plan B if they had religious objections."

The silliness of ignorance of the law... See the first comment for why that is so...

import_from_uk :I think she should be sacked. Anyone else not doing the tasks they were employed to do, would lose their job. Just because she's a government employee, this shouldn't change the facts. Do your job, all of it, and get paid. Don't do your job, or think you can pick and choose the parts you want to do, and lose it to someone else. Simple.

she did violate a court order. but did the judge have to issue THAT order? Was there authority for the court to issue that order?-----------You really don't know much about the legal system do you? Yes, the judge had the authority to find her in contempt. The judge had the authority to find you in contempt for looking cross eyed or being dressed inappropriately or whatever. She has the right to appeal.----------The law requires an employer or other covered entity to reasonably accommodate an employee's religious beliefs or practices, unless doing so would cause more than a minimal burden on the operations of the employer's business. This means an employer may be required to make reasonable adjustments to the work environment that will allow an employee to practice his or her religion.--------Stop looking for ways to justify what cannot be justified. Letting off ofvwork for a religious holiday is a reasonable accommodation. She refused to do her job. Period. Allowing her to refuse to do what she was elected to do (not to mention violating her oath of office) is not a reasonable accommodation. Some of people will try to twist anything to fit your prejudices.

What a bizarre year.This Religious Fanatic member of the Democrat Party is just simply wrong just as the Muslim airline attendant is wrong. When will the muslims and Democrat party stop trying to impose their religion on us.

Davis emerged from the Carter County Detention Center flanked by former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who met with her before her release.

“God showed up in the form of an elected official: Kim Davis,” Huckabee said. “Today I was proud to stand with Kim Davis as she was released from jail. Kim Davis should have never been locked up for being a Christian and for following her conscience and the law.“

Yahoo

I don't think much about Ms. Davis being a dixie democrat. After all, Trump has been a registered democrat several times, supports universal healthcare, and wants to raise taxes on the wealthy.

To me it does not matter what political party a person associates with ... I still have no use for them pushing their religious beliefs down our throats.

I think all it shows is that perhaps the TRD's (teabagger-republican-dippers) aren't the only religious fanatics out there. So what's new?

She's out because the office she works in is now in compliance with the law. If she goes back and starts to break the law again, she needs to go back to jail. On the other hand, her attorney has already stated that when she goes back to work she will not "violate" her conscience ... and I think we know what that will mean.

If I were a nurse still working in the county jail I'd be watching for her return ... so sad.